Version: 2008

Comments on: DSL strikes a chord with frugal shoppers

Middle-income households and price-sensitive Internet users have been signing up for DSL service.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 3 pages (152 Comments)
Its more than price...
by umbrae June 16, 2006 10:47 AM PDT
I have several co-workers and friends with Cable internet, and they are always going down. Their speed spikes and drops, and sometime it just doesn't work. I have DSL from a former company where I worked and helped develop the deployment strategy for DSL. I have had it since 2000, being one of a handful of beta tester, and have only had the service go down on my 3 times. And each time its was the Ma-Bell and not my ISP.

Note: this does not include hurricanes where EVERYTHING is down. Who cares about Internet when there is no power. :)
Reply to this comment
More than price
by jsmith1785 June 16, 2006 12:33 PM PDT
Here in NE Ohio, the cable service is great, doesn't go down for us. The speed is always around 4.5 - 4.8 Mbps.

I don't really care about the DSL prices, I can't stand local phone companies, doesn't matter who they are. Sprint/Embarq is local here, but whether them, SBC/AT&T, Verizon, they all screw people over on their phone prices. Plus, I regularly download large files, iso images of linux distros & such. DSL speeds top at 3Mbps, compared to standard cable at 5Mbps.

On top of that, DSL services demand a 1-2 year contract, no thanks, they can shove their contracts. I'll stick to Earthlink cable via Time Warner with the basic $14.95 Vonage plan in case I need something other than my cell phone.

For my needs, DSL can't compare.
View all 2 replies
My cable is solid
by drfrost June 16, 2006 3:48 PM PDT
I have a cable modem and the service is solid. The DSL and Cable networks are inherently different, and if the company in question doesn't address some of the issues with cable then you can certainly see some of the issues you are talking about (slows way down when everyone on your block is using it) but I have to say I've had very good luck with my cable modem service. It's gone down three times in the last year. Once was due to a hardware failure (a construction crew demolished their main line, a huge fiber optic cable... there was an article the next day in the newspaper about it) and it was down ~24 hours. The other two were due to electrical storms (I'm guessing because I live a few blocks from the main servers and both of the other outages were during big lightning storms) and lasted about 4 to 6 hours. Still, a few hours downtime once every 4 months is not bad in my experience.
It really is more than just price
by steveb7 June 16, 2006 4:00 PM PDT
Here in AZ it's Qwest for DSL and Cox/Comcast for cable. The cable companies want to charge business level pricing, $125/month, if you VPN back to work. According to them that's not residential usage as defined by them. In addition they block various ports. DSL on the other hand has no restrictions. I can run a VPN, SMTP or web server and not be charged extra. In addition when the local university is in session my neighbor gets about 128Kb downstream from Cox cable due to the network design they have implemented, yet my DSL is unaffected.
DSL has better upstream
by Akiba June 16, 2006 9:10 PM PDT
If you want a connection that actually works well both ways then DSL is the way to go. It really out does cable when it comes to uploads. If you download a lot of torrents, ftp files to web servers or use a lot of upstream bandwidth then this is really important. Another problem with cable for bandwidth intensive users is it has unspecified bandwidth caps while decent DSL tends to be unlimited. If your into testing out web services or seeding torrents then cable is pretty useless.

But either way, most Americans are getting ripped off when it comes to broadband serverices when family households in Japan are getting 10 to 100Mbit FIOS service for $25 to $50 per month.
View reply
Its more than price...
by umbrae June 16, 2006 10:47 AM PDT
I have several co-workers and friends with Cable internet, and they are always going down. Their speed spikes and drops, and sometime it just doesn't work. I have DSL from a former company where I worked and helped develop the deployment strategy for DSL. I have had it since 2000, being one of a handful of beta tester, and have only had the service go down on my 3 times. And each time its was the Ma-Bell and not my ISP.

Note: this does not include hurricanes where EVERYTHING is down. Who cares about Internet when there is no power. :)
Reply to this comment
More than price
by jsmith1785 June 16, 2006 12:33 PM PDT
Here in NE Ohio, the cable service is great, doesn't go down for us. The speed is always around 4.5 - 4.8 Mbps.

I don't really care about the DSL prices, I can't stand local phone companies, doesn't matter who they are. Sprint/Embarq is local here, but whether them, SBC/AT&T, Verizon, they all screw people over on their phone prices. Plus, I regularly download large files, iso images of linux distros & such. DSL speeds top at 3Mbps, compared to standard cable at 5Mbps.

On top of that, DSL services demand a 1-2 year contract, no thanks, they can shove their contracts. I'll stick to Earthlink cable via Time Warner with the basic $14.95 Vonage plan in case I need something other than my cell phone.

For my needs, DSL can't compare.
View all 2 replies
My cable is solid
by drfrost June 16, 2006 3:48 PM PDT
I have a cable modem and the service is solid. The DSL and Cable networks are inherently different, and if the company in question doesn't address some of the issues with cable then you can certainly see some of the issues you are talking about (slows way down when everyone on your block is using it) but I have to say I've had very good luck with my cable modem service. It's gone down three times in the last year. Once was due to a hardware failure (a construction crew demolished their main line, a huge fiber optic cable... there was an article the next day in the newspaper about it) and it was down ~24 hours. The other two were due to electrical storms (I'm guessing because I live a few blocks from the main servers and both of the other outages were during big lightning storms) and lasted about 4 to 6 hours. Still, a few hours downtime once every 4 months is not bad in my experience.
It really is more than just price
by steveb7 June 16, 2006 4:00 PM PDT
Here in AZ it's Qwest for DSL and Cox/Comcast for cable. The cable companies want to charge business level pricing, $125/month, if you VPN back to work. According to them that's not residential usage as defined by them. In addition they block various ports. DSL on the other hand has no restrictions. I can run a VPN, SMTP or web server and not be charged extra. In addition when the local university is in session my neighbor gets about 128Kb downstream from Cox cable due to the network design they have implemented, yet my DSL is unaffected.
DSL has better upstream
by Akiba June 16, 2006 9:10 PM PDT
If you want a connection that actually works well both ways then DSL is the way to go. It really out does cable when it comes to uploads. If you download a lot of torrents, ftp files to web servers or use a lot of upstream bandwidth then this is really important. Another problem with cable for bandwidth intensive users is it has unspecified bandwidth caps while decent DSL tends to be unlimited. If your into testing out web services or seeding torrents then cable is pretty useless.

But either way, most Americans are getting ripped off when it comes to broadband serverices when family households in Japan are getting 10 to 100Mbit FIOS service for $25 to $50 per month.
View reply
When are wireless & power line broadband coming online?
by ordaj June 16, 2006 1:04 PM PDT
That should get prices down.
Reply to this comment
Testing
by schubb June 16, 2006 1:56 PM PDT
Both of those are still in testing phases in the US. You have spectrum allocation issues with Wireless that need worked out.

As for BoP, there is an issue with Ham Radio that needs to be addressed. The issue has presented that there needs to be more research done into what frequencies are being affected. Ham Radio still has a large place in disaster situations.

There are numerous reports of Ham Radio "buzzing" in the test locations for BoP, this brings up worries that it may interfer with emergency response communication systems.

Hopefully they can get both of these worked out quickly so we can have real competition.
View reply
Current Communications Broadband BPL in Manassas going for 10 mbps upload
by 200mbpsBPL June 16, 2006 9:53 PM PDT
Check their website:

http://www.current.net/WatchTheVideo/

Read more about Global Broadband over PowerLines updates especially about ham-friendly BPL technology !!!
http://broadbandoverpowerlines.blogspot.com/
View all 2 replies
wireless is already here,
by Jackson Cracker June 17, 2006 5:11 PM PDT
in some areas at least, with more on the way, but
in many cases it's not very "broad".
Powerline broadband still sounds like pie in the sky
due to all the technical problems.
When are wireless & power line broadband coming online?
by ordaj June 16, 2006 1:04 PM PDT
That should get prices down.
Reply to this comment
Testing
by schubb June 16, 2006 1:56 PM PDT
Both of those are still in testing phases in the US. You have spectrum allocation issues with Wireless that need worked out.

As for BoP, there is an issue with Ham Radio that needs to be addressed. The issue has presented that there needs to be more research done into what frequencies are being affected. Ham Radio still has a large place in disaster situations.

There are numerous reports of Ham Radio "buzzing" in the test locations for BoP, this brings up worries that it may interfer with emergency response communication systems.

Hopefully they can get both of these worked out quickly so we can have real competition.
View reply
Current Communications Broadband BPL in Manassas going for 10 mbps upload
by 200mbpsBPL June 16, 2006 9:53 PM PDT
Check their website:

http://www.current.net/WatchTheVideo/

Read more about Global Broadband over PowerLines updates especially about ham-friendly BPL technology !!!
http://broadbandoverpowerlines.blogspot.com/
View all 2 replies
wireless is already here,
by Jackson Cracker June 17, 2006 5:11 PM PDT
in some areas at least, with more on the way, but
in many cases it's not very "broad".
Powerline broadband still sounds like pie in the sky
due to all the technical problems.
neither thank you
by BengalTigger June 16, 2006 1:54 PM PDT
How'd you like that comcast "we are consumer friendly" response! She's touting that $99 package like its a value just below the article where the guy talks about cutting his costs from $100 to $60. I love it!

Cable can keep their fast connections. I refuse to fill their pockets with my hard earned cash just so they can "open the spiggot" a little more for us thirsty people. The way I look at it, they should be paying me to connect. Let them collect from the companies that are benefitting financially from internet sales (etc).
Reply to this comment
They provide a service
by drfrost June 16, 2006 3:37 PM PDT
If it's not worth the money they charge for it then don't get it (which is what you are basically saying). It's worth the money to the me. I spend a lot of time online and I need a lot of bandwidth with low latency. Well worth the money in my opinion.
neither thank you
by BengalTigger June 16, 2006 1:54 PM PDT
How'd you like that comcast "we are consumer friendly" response! She's touting that $99 package like its a value just below the article where the guy talks about cutting his costs from $100 to $60. I love it!

Cable can keep their fast connections. I refuse to fill their pockets with my hard earned cash just so they can "open the spiggot" a little more for us thirsty people. The way I look at it, they should be paying me to connect. Let them collect from the companies that are benefitting financially from internet sales (etc).
Reply to this comment
They provide a service
by drfrost June 16, 2006 3:37 PM PDT
If it's not worth the money they charge for it then don't get it (which is what you are basically saying). It's worth the money to the me. I spend a lot of time online and I need a lot of bandwidth with low latency. Well worth the money in my opinion.
Switched from Cable to DSL...
by open-mind June 16, 2006 2:20 PM PDT
Because my monthly cost dropped from $45 to $15 (for the first year anyway).

Supposedly the cable was faster, but in day-to-day use I can't really tell much difference.
Reply to this comment
Switched from Cable to DSL...
by open-mind June 16, 2006 2:20 PM PDT
Because my monthly cost dropped from $45 to $15 (for the first year anyway).

Supposedly the cable was faster, but in day-to-day use I can't really tell much difference.
Reply to this comment
There is competition amongst cable companies
by Johnny Mnemonic June 16, 2006 2:28 PM PDT
There is also wow cable here:

www.wowway.com

I am sick of Comcast's high prices and network
outages. Their DNS servers seem to go out also
on a regular basis. They seem to be pricing
themselves out of the market.
Reply to this comment
sounds good
by Jackson Cracker June 16, 2006 10:13 PM PDT
Too bad WOW! is only available in three states.
View reply
There is competition amongst cable companies
by Johnny Mnemonic June 16, 2006 2:28 PM PDT
There is also wow cable here:

www.wowway.com

I am sick of Comcast's high prices and network
outages. Their DNS servers seem to go out also
on a regular basis. They seem to be pricing
themselves out of the market.
Reply to this comment
sounds good
by Jackson Cracker June 16, 2006 10:13 PM PDT
Too bad WOW! is only available in three states.
View reply
Naked DSL vs DSL
by saleen351 June 16, 2006 3:02 PM PDT
Every time I tried to buy DSL they tried to force me into buying a phone line, my unlimited cell plan at $55 is all the phone I need. Cnet please do an article on naked DSL!! Until then it's 60 bucks to comcast. It still might be cheaper for the 1st year to get the DSL but after the year, It's not, it's the same price a distincition the artilce doesn't make.
Reply to this comment
Naked DSL vs DSL
by saleen351 June 16, 2006 3:02 PM PDT
Every time I tried to buy DSL they tried to force me into buying a phone line, my unlimited cell plan at $55 is all the phone I need. Cnet please do an article on naked DSL!! Until then it's 60 bucks to comcast. It still might be cheaper for the 1st year to get the DSL but after the year, It's not, it's the same price a distincition the artilce doesn't make.
Reply to this comment
Cable still has one fundamental problem
by thenet411 June 16, 2006 4:20 PM PDT
That problem is that it is now, and always will be, a shared medium. That is a major drawback. Network administrators (when they have a choice between DSL and cable) will always go with DSL. It is no fun when you are called at 8:00pm to remote into a data center only to have your available neighborhood bandwidth hogged by the kid next door downloading porn. This does not happen with DSL.

It used to be that DSL speeds were far slower than cable but that is changing. At the moment, DSL speeds (for the majority of possible DSL connections offered) are about equal. Some cable markets are rolling out 20+Mb/s service and some are even higher. But the same problem will always come back and that is the shared medium. All that bandwidth means nothing when the cable comany oversells the area or little Johnny next door decides to upload 10GB of videos of him playing his XBox.

If you really want reliable broadband service that is not affected by your next door neighbor's surfing habits, go with DSL.
Reply to this comment
Central Office connections can also result in the same "shared medium" prob
by metro305 June 16, 2006 5:15 PM PDT
True but don't forget that your DSL circuit ends up a DSLAM at a CO. At the CO your DSLAM must interface with your ISP's FR or ATM network and that is a weak link. I have had instances where too many circuits were homed in to a CO but the interface to the ATM data network was a T-1!!! Talk about shared and over subscription.

I still favor DSL but must be naked (no dialtone)for me to make the move back from cable.

FYI I worked for an independt ISP that provided DSL in the late 90's - early 00's and used your argument to get people to switch :)

-Metro305
View reply
Urban Myth
by tanis143 June 17, 2006 9:30 PM PDT
Um, sorry to say but thats an old stratagy and now an urban myth (unless your cable company is living in the dark ages). Now, most cable companies use node management and QOS to make sure that the average bandwidth stays the same. I live in a middle class neighborhood where I know there are plenty of people on the cable network (my computer that has an extended wireless antenna picks up about 8 wireless connections besides mine, and the ones I logged into are on cable) and my speed stays around 8.5 MBps (9MBps service for 54.95). My uploads are always around 900 KBps.

DSL speeds however are always varried depending on where you live. Sure, they only offer you what they can give on approxamation, but if you can only get 1 MBps vs 4 MBps(the standard package for 39.99), which would you take? Besides, with the cable company offering phone, HSI, and tv service, its much easier to take a bundle than get the services from 2 different companies. Why else do you think DSL has dropped its price so much in the past few years. They had to find some way to compete with the cable companies.
View reply
Not true
by goomah June 18, 2006 7:59 PM PDT
I work at a large well known company datacenter, at home the majority of us use cable - NOT DSL - even our network admins. It's more reliable. As far as the other comment about a shared medium, DSL is also. PPOE SUCKS. You get point to point so far then it's shared also. The farther away you get from the switch your bandwith suffers, so unless you're right next door to it you lose bandwidth. With DSL you're using 80 year old (could be older or newer lines - still old lines) copper lines, most cable lines have been upgraded in the past 10 yrs or so. I've worked in the IT field since 1988, I will never have DSL (unless it's my only option). BTW: I want FIOS! lol
View reply
Cable still has one fundamental problem
by thenet411 June 16, 2006 4:20 PM PDT
That problem is that it is now, and always will be, a shared medium. That is a major drawback. Network administrators (when they have a choice between DSL and cable) will always go with DSL. It is no fun when you are called at 8:00pm to remote into a data center only to have your available neighborhood bandwidth hogged by the kid next door downloading porn. This does not happen with DSL.

It used to be that DSL speeds were far slower than cable but that is changing. At the moment, DSL speeds (for the majority of possible DSL connections offered) are about equal. Some cable markets are rolling out 20+Mb/s service and some are even higher. But the same problem will always come back and that is the shared medium. All that bandwidth means nothing when the cable comany oversells the area or little Johnny next door decides to upload 10GB of videos of him playing his XBox.

If you really want reliable broadband service that is not affected by your next door neighbor's surfing habits, go with DSL.
Reply to this comment
Central Office connections can also result in the same "shared medium" prob
by metro305 June 16, 2006 5:15 PM PDT
True but don't forget that your DSL circuit ends up a DSLAM at a CO. At the CO your DSLAM must interface with your ISP's FR or ATM network and that is a weak link. I have had instances where too many circuits were homed in to a CO but the interface to the ATM data network was a T-1!!! Talk about shared and over subscription.

I still favor DSL but must be naked (no dialtone)for me to make the move back from cable.

FYI I worked for an independt ISP that provided DSL in the late 90's - early 00's and used your argument to get people to switch :)

-Metro305
View reply
Urban Myth
by tanis143 June 17, 2006 9:30 PM PDT
Um, sorry to say but thats an old stratagy and now an urban myth (unless your cable company is living in the dark ages). Now, most cable companies use node management and QOS to make sure that the average bandwidth stays the same. I live in a middle class neighborhood where I know there are plenty of people on the cable network (my computer that has an extended wireless antenna picks up about 8 wireless connections besides mine, and the ones I logged into are on cable) and my speed stays around 8.5 MBps (9MBps service for 54.95). My uploads are always around 900 KBps.

DSL speeds however are always varried depending on where you live. Sure, they only offer you what they can give on approxamation, but if you can only get 1 MBps vs 4 MBps(the standard package for 39.99), which would you take? Besides, with the cable company offering phone, HSI, and tv service, its much easier to take a bundle than get the services from 2 different companies. Why else do you think DSL has dropped its price so much in the past few years. They had to find some way to compete with the cable companies.
View reply
Not true
by goomah June 18, 2006 7:59 PM PDT
I work at a large well known company datacenter, at home the majority of us use cable - NOT DSL - even our network admins. It's more reliable. As far as the other comment about a shared medium, DSL is also. PPOE SUCKS. You get point to point so far then it's shared also. The farther away you get from the switch your bandwith suffers, so unless you're right next door to it you lose bandwidth. With DSL you're using 80 year old (could be older or newer lines - still old lines) copper lines, most cable lines have been upgraded in the past 10 yrs or so. I've worked in the IT field since 1988, I will never have DSL (unless it's my only option). BTW: I want FIOS! lol
View reply
DSL Vs. Cable
by heritagejd June 16, 2006 7:01 PM PDT
Both PONS and DSL are shared platforms.

Question, is their any demand for dedicated scaled bandwidth from 10 to 300 mbs, based on an individuals need, simultaneous in both directions?

All comments welcome!
Reply to this comment
DSL Vs. Cable
by heritagejd June 16, 2006 7:01 PM PDT
Both PONS and DSL are shared platforms.

Question, is their any demand for dedicated scaled bandwidth from 10 to 300 mbs, based on an individuals need, simultaneous in both directions?

All comments welcome!
Reply to this comment
Switched from DSL to Cable
by June 16, 2006 9:24 PM PDT
I dialed in to DSL, got busy signal, cancelled and has been with cable internet ever since.
Reply to this comment
uh...
by bob blob June 17, 2006 1:20 AM PDT
you don't "dial in" to DSL. perhaps you had dial-up service...not DSL.
View reply
Switched from DSL to Cable
by June 16, 2006 9:24 PM PDT
I dialed in to DSL, got busy signal, cancelled and has been with cable internet ever since.
Reply to this comment
uh...
by bob blob June 17, 2006 1:20 AM PDT
you don't "dial in" to DSL. perhaps you had dial-up service...not DSL.
View reply
Availability
by dragonbite June 16, 2006 9:27 PM PDT
Heck, I just want something to be available to me! It's like they've gotten so into this one-up-man-ship that they've forgotten that there are people NOT in West-Bum-F%&$ who want ANY broadband service!

I'm in the Norhteast and DSL in the next town over (literally a couple hundred feet away) but not for me?!
Reply to this comment
Availability
by dragonbite June 16, 2006 9:27 PM PDT
Heck, I just want something to be available to me! It's like they've gotten so into this one-up-man-ship that they've forgotten that there are people NOT in West-Bum-F%&$ who want ANY broadband service!

I'm in the Norhteast and DSL in the next town over (literally a couple hundred feet away) but not for me?!
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 3 pages (152 Comments)
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

advertisement